Talk:J.D. Power/Archives/2013

Merger
There is another article for "J.D. Power". Shouldn't the two be combined, and one deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.8.215.81 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2005 (UTC)
 * yea i just found it. they should be merged. 70.111.251.203 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They are 2 separate things. This is the company, J.D. Power is the man. --Froalskiner 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
"JD Power supporters however point out that their surveys are influential and therefore it doesn't matter if they are reliable." -that "supporters" viewpoint doesn't sound very supportive, if I knew what supporters actually thought I'd change it, but I didn't even know there was a debate 216.207.246.230 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of unsupported slamming going on
Clearly no "supporter" would ever say anything like that. Simply doing some basic research shows that J.D. Power has always been an independent company that's managed to piss off lots of the big car companies (along with other industries) by giving a venue for customer experiences, both good and bad. Companies would nearly always rather keep that kind of information under wraps -- too bad for them that the 'net and places like this make that impossible to do, particularly when the research of proven independent firms like J.D. Power can be accessed by anyone. This article is unbelieveably biased. It should be deleted and redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospeech (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Consumer Reports
HAHA. What eveidence is there that they are "not for profit"? Utter nonsense. CJ DUB 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The publisher of Consumer Reports ("Consumers Union of United States") is a nonprofit corporation. It is registered as such with the Internal Revenue Service of the US Government. Exia 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References?
No cited references except for the company's website, and no cited source for the "Criticism" section. I don't dispute or support anything in the article, but it would be improved by some external information on the subject. -- Epimetreus 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced criticism
I removed the Criticism section because the claims could be considered libel if false, and they are unreferenced. There were also counterclaims randomly inserted in the text, which made it a real mess. -- Beland 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the section again--Froalskiner (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflicts of Interest
What do we think about linking in a discussion on conflicts of interest? J.D. Power faces a silimar conflict of interest that appears in other industries as well. For example, accounting firms are paid by the very firms they objectively audit - potential conflict. Also, there are ratings firms (Moody's, Fitch, S&P) that rate the debt of companies and get paid by the companies that issue the debt - potential conflict. I think this is the broader issue that should be linked in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chichi2186 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Tag
Due to all the issues with sources pov, conflict of intrest, ect., I have tagged the article with Noncompliant for cleanup.HondasareGOOD (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section is very poorly written. It's obiously some kind of edit war with two biased opinions. I have tagged it with OR-sect and POV-section due to this.HondasareGOOD (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect me to believe that JD powers is unbiased. You are kidding right? I am physician and you would think that when it came to people's lives that would be the only place where corruption would not exist but i assure you that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry as well as in basic and clinical research. corruption is rampid. Question everything !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Questions of "independent and unbiased"
It seems to me that the opening statement that the company conducts "independent & unbiased" surveys is causing a lot of the friction. Why not just state that the company conducts surveys and leave it at that? Hatcat (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as Citations?
I remove the power for pay critisim because it used a blog as it citation, really, I think that if you are going to write something like that you have to actually have a source that is relying on facts and not just what the source has heard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.187.221 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Reports
I removed the reference to Consumer reports since it's not really relevant to this company. I also cleaned up some of the wording in a few other sections.--Froalskiner (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The language of customer satisfaction?
Last paragraph "bringing the language of customer satisfaction to consumers and businesses"...What kind of marketing speak is this? Like there were no customer satisfaction surveys before JDP brought them? Nonsense, needs to go. Kar98 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section...comes and goes...
I don't understand why Consumer Reports keeps getting brought up in this article. 1, they are not the same company. 2, they have different types of data gathering. The main data gathering method J.D. Power and Associates uses is surveys sent out to vehicle owners(assuming the point of contention is the automotive surveys). They compile this data to generate the scores then provides all of that data to all of the manufacturers that purchase the study information. How can they possibly be biased in the scoring if each number is scrutinized by every manufacturer. --Froalskiner (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of criticism
This article has no credible criticism of J.D. Power and Associates to balance its gushing positive description.

I searched the Web and could find only one (clearly biased) complaint against J.D. Power and Associates (I did a general search as well as searches on popular complaint sites).

This seems odd to me. The company conducts surveys of customer satisfaction then provides the use of their results in advertising for the top-rated companies. The temptation for abuse is enormous. In thinking about this, I realized an important point that I have not seen considered: there appears to be no organization with a mission to evaluate or regulate companies like JDPA. Therefore, although JDPA evaluates many companies, no companies or government agencies evaluate JDPA. Why do we trust them to use objective and accurate satisfaction survey criteria to recommend the best products or services?

No company is perfect, yet, according to the Web, JDPA would appear to have a perfect record. This is hard to believe. [here ends the original comment by D.Spector, with my name and date deleted]

[Here starts an unsigned comment by someone else David Spector (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)]

Even more unbelievably, JDPA claims that EarthLink's performance is "impressive" EarthLink rocks, J.D. Power says (2007) The reason I say that this is unbelievable is that a Google search shows 37 specific websites containing complaints against Earthlink Complaints against Earthlink, whereas only 22 specific websites containing complaints against Verizon FIOS, one of Earthlink's much larger competitors, were found. Complaints against Verizon FIOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by David spector (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [This was not written by me--David Spector (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)]

New link to criticism
Someone has added a link to an excellently-written critique of this company ("The Bogies: Radar nominates the most bogus awards in America", Ken Bensinger, radaronline.com). Unfortunately, this link is to a poor-quality source buried in the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20070604152957/http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/09/jd_power_associates.php). As such, I expect that it will be deleted by some zealous WP editor as not complying with WP editorial policies.

Here is an excellent example where a paucity of references should be a good excuse to bend policy and allow a "poor quality" source to be used until a better one is found. There are many companies like this one making lots of money using questionable business models. The fact is that muckraking exposes are fairly rare, and may even be suppressed through appeals to copyright, company secret, and other laws designed to protect the rights of legitimate companies. So, honest and in-depth investigation into the ethics of a company may not be available in high-quality sources such as well-known large-circulation newspapers and journals. It is time to review WP editorial policies with a view to applying some of them in a tiered approach which will cover cases where adequate information is not yet available in mass or high-quality sources. David Spector (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This Dec 2011 article http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-trouble-with-jd-powers-initial-quality-study-feature seems a good quality source of (mildly) negative criticism of J.D.Powers. If no objections, I'll restore the criticism section and include the gist of this attributed to it, which should help make this article seem less add-like.

There really does seem to be a dearth of credible criticism of J.D.Powers, suggesting they truely are as good as this implies. CraigDuncan (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow logically at all.
 * Besides that, everything in the Bogie article could be found with references in this wiki article already. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Marketing research
The Marketing research section says, "These advertisement licensing fees, however, form a small part of J.D. Power's revenues."

This raises the question: what are the larger parts of J.D. Power's revenues?

The question doesn't seem to be answered.

Here is what the cited source says:

"Most consumers know J. D. Power for its customer service and quality evaluations of various products and services. But that's just a sideline. The firm earns virtually no money on its product ratings, except for the licensing fees paid by companies that use a J. D. Power endorsement in their marketing campaigns. The bulk of the firm's revenue comes from the sale of detailed data culled from its consumer surveys. J. D. Power sells the comprehensive research to firms, then carves out small slices of data, say, a list of the top hotels, for public consumption. That helps build J. D. Power's brand image, but the profit motive limits the information the firm can offer the public."

My guess is that this means that one company can pay to learn how well another company is doing. Such knowledge must provide a big corporate advantage. David Spector (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is confirmed. Later, the source says:

"Power's big break came in 1973 when his consumer questionnaires revealed that Mazda's highly touted new rotary engine had to be replaced after 30,000 miles about 20 percent of the time, a problem Mazda's senior management didn't know about. Power packaged the results and sold it to seven automakers."

And now, as Paul Harvey used to say, you know the rest of the story.

David Spector (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Selling Endorsements
"...except for the licensing fees paid by companies that use a J. D. Power endorsement in their marketing campaigns. Endorsement is for sale. That's not unbiased. Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)